Damn, I take a few days off of blogging and the New York Times (er, John Markoff) goes and invents Web 3.0.
Huh?
I’ve done more than 50 interviews in the past three months and collected hundreds of business cards and I’ve NEVER heard anyone talking about Web 3.0.
Why am I left out of this joke? Ahh, the joke is on me.
Well, I was talking with several Web leaders tonight (seriously, I was) and we decided that Web 3.0 just won’t do.
So, tonight, we’re announcing Web 2007.
It’s just like Web 2006 except it has more widgets. Works on Windows Vista (which will ship in 2007). Apple will make it better (they are shipping a new OS too).
In best renaming tradition, it will embrace and extend Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 concepts. So, of course, Google will put ads on it.
Ray Ozzie will demonstrate a cool application framework for Web 2007 at Mix2007. David Heinemeier Hansson will hit back with Ruby on Rails 2007
Dave Winer will build OPML 2007 for moving your feeds from Web 2.0-oriented RSS readers to Web 2007-oriented RSS readers. Of course, RSS 2007 is the same as RSS 2006, but wait until you see Atom 2007!
Now, the important stuff. We need a “ready for Web 2007″ logo. Someone needs to design new rounded-corner graphics.
But, Valleywag nailed this — there’s no story here. So, move along.
Whatever the geeks are inventing it won’t be first seen in the New York Times and it probably won’t be called Web 3.0.
How did this get on the front page of the New York Times, though?
Other news here on Web 2007:
VC Peter Rip says the recombinant Web is coming. I agree with him, by the way, about Web 2.0 Summit. There weren’t many geeks there. Lots of CEOs and VCs, though. For a guy like me who wants to get those people on camera, it was pretty good.
Ross Mayfield says that Web 3.0 will be known as a marketing disaster.
Greg Linden says “cut the “Web 3.0″ hype. MY NOTE? Oh, wait Greg, until you see Web 2007 hype. It’ll take the Web 2.0 hype and multiply it by the Web 3.0 hype. It’ll be like “hype squared!” Heheh. Damn, I’m almost hyped up enough to create a PowerPoint presentation and start going up and down Sand Hill Road and see if I can get a Web 2007 company funded without having a product, a team, a business model, or, even, a blog. GASP. Can Scoble do it? 
Dave Winer asks “does hype ever go out of style?”
The rest of TechMeme goes link happy, which, might just be what the New York Times was going for. So “Web 2.0.”
Web 2007 will be about what DOES NOT get linked to. Steve Gillmor style. I wonder if the New York Times can sense the gesture I’m sending it? Note I didn’t link to the Times.
Of course Dan Farber will write about Web 2007 and Nick Carr will say it’s irrelevant.
Oh, Nick reminded me to get a URL. Damn, Web2007.com is already gone.
I’m going back to do more chores for Maryam. You all have fun with this whole Web thing, OK? In the meantime I’m preparing a bevy of stuff for ScobleShow, which is the first approved Web 2007 site. Well, we will be as soon as we turn on our new API, our new iTunes/iPod feed, our new rounded corner graphics, our new social networking program, and our new hype machine which will be covered in next week’s New York Times.
Sigh.
Nice post. I don’t like the buzzwords-jumping, too
But I do like the idea of a meta-description language (RDF?) that simplifies searches and allows the software to “learn” a little bit, like Last.fm does with my music… it’s such an old stuff that now it’s time we do it ;D
Nice post. I don’t like the buzzwords-jumping, too
But I do like the idea of a meta-description language (RDF?) that simplifies searches and allows the software to “learn” a little bit, like Last.fm does with my music… it’s such an old stuff that now it’s time we do it ;D
Nice post. I don’t like the buzzwords-jumping, too
But I do like the idea of a meta-description language (RDF?) that simplifies searches and allows the software to “learn” a little bit, like Last.fm does with my music… it’s such an old stuff that now it’s time we do it ;D
I remember a quip from your buddy Bill earlier in March at MIX06. He was ending his 1-on-1 conversation with Tim O’Reilly.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2006/03-20MIX.aspx
TIM O’REILLY: All right, well, I think we’ve got to wrap here. Listen, can I get you to come to our Web 2.0 conference in November? I’d love to continue the conversation.
BILL GATES: Well, by then you might have to call it Web 3.0.
TIM O’REILLY: That’s true. Let’s see what makes sense. (Laughter.) Okay, thank you very much.
BILL GATES: Thanks a lot, Tim, good job.
(I guess it didn’t work out)
I remember a quip from your buddy Bill earlier in March at MIX06. He was ending his 1-on-1 conversation with Tim O’Reilly.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2006/03-20MIX.aspx
TIM O’REILLY: All right, well, I think we’ve got to wrap here. Listen, can I get you to come to our Web 2.0 conference in November? I’d love to continue the conversation.
BILL GATES: Well, by then you might have to call it Web 3.0.
TIM O’REILLY: That’s true. Let’s see what makes sense. (Laughter.) Okay, thank you very much.
BILL GATES: Thanks a lot, Tim, good job.
(I guess it didn’t work out)
I remember a quip from your buddy Bill earlier in March at MIX06. He was ending his 1-on-1 conversation with Tim O’Reilly.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2006/03-20MIX.aspx
TIM O’REILLY: All right, well, I think we’ve got to wrap here. Listen, can I get you to come to our Web 2.0 conference in November? I’d love to continue the conversation.
BILL GATES: Well, by then you might have to call it Web 3.0.
TIM O’REILLY: That’s true. Let’s see what makes sense. (Laughter.) Okay, thank you very much.
BILL GATES: Thanks a lot, Tim, good job.
(I guess it didn’t work out)
Can’t we just go with the new, new web?
Can’t we just go with the new, new web?
Can’t we just go with the new, new web?
[...] Now the whole blogosphere is abuzz debating 2.0 v 3.0 v ??? Nick Bradbury states: “This weekend much of the geekosphere was buzzing about the “Web 3.0″ article in the NY Times, but from where I stand, Web 3.0 does not validate.” Tim O’Reilly, Mr. Web 2.0 himself, isn’t on board, and Robert Scoble wrote a fun piece referring to it as Web 2007. Dan Farber seems to sit on the fence a little bit, but then Nick at Valleywag (nice redesign) goes straight for the jugular: In short, the Times wants to announce a trend just in case that trend actually materializes in the next few months. But don’t bet on it — Google smelled a dud and didn’t touch this story, and neither should anyone looking for the real next big thing. [...]
[...] Maybe Web 2.0 (or I guess we’re calling it Web 3.0, or 2.2, or the semantic web or Web 2007 or whatever, I still can’t figure it out), is in a bubble. Maybe there is too much money chasing too few really good ideas. Maybe the meteoric rise of Google’s stock price isn’t a good thing. And maybe sometimes it takes a gossip writer to point some of the excesses out. And if nothing else, this was something that Nick was good at and was a useful role that somebody in the Valley needed to play. [...]
[...] Predictably, the blogosphere is all over the Web 3.0 meme, with notable responses from Nick Bradbury who says “The Semantic Web may happen, but if it does, it’s going to be a helluva lot messier than the architects would like,” and ex-Microsoftie Robert Scoble who proposes “Web 2007″ as a much more hypeworthy name, Tim O’Reilly (”I was surprised to see Markoff referring to this as “Web 3.0″, when that very fact is the heart of what we’ve been calling Web 2.0.”), and, of course, Dave Winer. [...]
As an educator- the buzz is extremely heavy about Web 2.0- we have been beaten over the head with it, and it does seem to hold promise for re-thinking education delivery…HOWEVER…we are still dealing with Teacher 1.0 and still trying to find the upgrade path…
In typical marketing fashion, it seems like we are on to the next big thing…I’m sure that in short order every school district in the country will be booking Web 3.0/2007 consultants (at considerable expense) to explain why we can’t exist without all of the great apps. (if 2.0 was the read/write web will 3.0 sing and dance?)
Kudos for heralding this as a non-event!
As an educator- the buzz is extremely heavy about Web 2.0- we have been beaten over the head with it, and it does seem to hold promise for re-thinking education delivery…HOWEVER…we are still dealing with Teacher 1.0 and still trying to find the upgrade path…
In typical marketing fashion, it seems like we are on to the next big thing…I’m sure that in short order every school district in the country will be booking Web 3.0/2007 consultants (at considerable expense) to explain why we can’t exist without all of the great apps. (if 2.0 was the read/write web will 3.0 sing and dance?)
Kudos for heralding this as a non-event!
As an educator- the buzz is extremely heavy about Web 2.0- we have been beaten over the head with it, and it does seem to hold promise for re-thinking education delivery…HOWEVER…we are still dealing with Teacher 1.0 and still trying to find the upgrade path…
In typical marketing fashion, it seems like we are on to the next big thing…I’m sure that in short order every school district in the country will be booking Web 3.0/2007 consultants (at considerable expense) to explain why we can’t exist without all of the great apps. (if 2.0 was the read/write web will 3.0 sing and dance?)
Kudos for heralding this as a non-event!
[...] Comments [...]
Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense - Is That Really So?!?
As if we didn’t have enough with Web 2.0 and all the hype going on around the subject of social software, here is an article from the NYT introducing the concept of Web 3.0. This is a weblog post in which I share why I am not really looking forward to…
[...] For more on the Web 3.0 debate, check out Scoble’s (sarcastic) summary. ← home [...]
[...] This site has been live just over 2 weeks, so we thought we’d take a look at how our visitors are finding us. Just over a quarter of visitors come directly to the site by typing in the URL or clicking on a favorite link in their browser — this is probably mostly us coming to visit or edit the site. Just under 20% of viewers come from Yahoo Profiles — Misty is here, Bill is here. Just over 15% came from Robert Scoble’s blog — because of a comment Bill made to a post. Almost 9% come from our TLCmagic blog, almost 7% from Misty’s MySpace Profile, just over 6% from Flickr where we both have photos posted, just under 6% from Blogger which hosts our TLCmagic blog, just under 6% from Yahoo Search which has this site at number one for “Design Ninjas”, just under 2% from Technorati where we have a profile, just under 1% from Seth Godin’s blog after we linked to him here, followed by the rest of the Long Tail. [...]
[...] Robert Scoble wiederum legt seinen Beitrag komplett als Satire an und führt mit Web 2007 gleich den nächsten Hype ein: “So, tonight, we’re announcing Web 2007. It’s just like Web 2006 except it has more widgets. Works on Windows Vista (which will ship in 2007). Apple will make it better (they are shipping a new OS too).” [...]
[...] For more on the Web 3.0 debate, check out Scoble’s (sarcastic) summary. [...]